Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in real estate, failed to file returns for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The AO initiated scrutiny based on information about cash deposits post-demonetization. The assessee filed returns but did not appear for assessment proceedings, leading to the AO treating returns as invalid. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting a dispute among partners and acknowledging the assessee became aware of the situation after the dismissal of the other year's appeal by CIT(A). However, the Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent non-appearance before lower authorities.
Key Issues
The primary issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's non-compliance with notices from the AO and CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the AO to re-decide the matter after levying a cost on the assessee for non-appearance.
Sections Cited
142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both these appeals of the assessee are arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.7.2023 & 30.8.2024 relates to assessment year 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054550907(1). We are taking ITA Number 1736/2024 for AY 2017-18 as lead year and deciding the appeals accordingly. is delayed by 355 days as evident from the date of ld. CIT(A)’s order dated 24.7.2023. Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee drawing the attention of the bench towards the condonation application, duly supported with sworn affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm, & 1737/Bang/2024 M/s. Akshaya Builders Developers Promoters, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 contended that the appeal has been filed belatedly because there was serious dispute among partners and hence, the delay has happened due to reasonable cause and the same may kindly be condoned.
Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the prayer made by the counsel of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly.
After considering the submissions with respect to the condonation application, we observe that there was a dispute between the partners of the assessee firm due to which the assessee was unable to approach this Tribunal in time. It is also coming out from the affidavit of the assessee that the assessee has come to know the fate of the appeal for AY 2017-18, after the dismissal of appeal for assessment year 2018-19 by the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter the assessee immediately filed the appeal for both years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter on merits.
Brief facts giving rise to the filing of present appeal are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Real Estate. It has not filed return of income for the impugned year 2017- 18 as well as assessment year 2018-19. Thereafter, on the basis of information, the AO picked up the cases of the assessee for the impugned years under scrutiny. The information with the department was revealing that the assessee has deposited substantial cash after demonetization. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee and called for the return of income. The assessee filed the return of income for both years and tried to explain the source of cash deposit. Thereafter, no one appeared from the side of assessee and the department framed the assessment by treating the returns filed by the assessee as invalid return.
& 1737/Bang/2024 M/s. Akshaya Builders Developers Promoters, Bangalore Page 3 of 4
Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT-(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued 7 notices of hearing to the assessee. However, no one appeared from the side of the assessee and hence, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals ex-parte affirming the order of the AO. Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us and contended that the order of ld. CIT(A) is not tenable as the same has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee accepted that notice issued from the office ld. CIT(A) was duly served upon the assessee.
The ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue vehemently argued that the assessee is a non-cooperative tax payer and playing with the tactics of delay and latches and hence, the additions made by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) are legally tenable.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that in this case, the assessee has neither appeared before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A), which shows that assessee was either willfully not attending the lower authorities or the assessee was not taking the income tax proceedings as vigilantly. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter to the file of AO for deciding afresh in accordance with law after levying a cost of Rs.50,000/- for each assessment year, and direct the assessee to deposit the cost under the head “Others” and the challans should be submitted to the AO. We hereby clarify that in case the assessee will not appear before the AO, and will not comply with the notices issued by the AO in remand proceedings, then no leniency would be available to the assessee in a second round. With these observations, the appeals are decided.
& 1737/Bang/2024 M/s. Akshaya Builders Developers Promoters, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Dec, 2024